15 year admissions trend for UChicago, Harvard, Stanford

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
1

<p>Over the past 15 years, from 1997 to 2012 UChicago has had the most dramatic drop in admit rate in the country, going from 61% to 13%. A drop of 80% (48 percentage points).</p>

<p>(In fact, if you went back even a couple of years further, UChicago had an acceptance rate of 70%, making the drop even more dramatic.)</p>

<p>Over that same 15-year period, Harvard and Stanford had a decrease of about 50% in their admit rate, going from 12.5% to 5.9% in the case of Harvard and about 13% to 6.6% for Stanford. (By the way, most of the top schools have seen their admit rate drop 50% over the past 15 years.)</p>

<p>While Harvard’s admit rate is half of what it was, UChicago is less than one fourth of what it was.</p>

<p>UChicago’s dramatic decrease happened even though it increased the size of its undergraduate program by 40% during that 15-year period. Harvard did not appreciably increase the size of its program at all during that period.</p>

<p>If this trend continues over the next 15 years and the schools’ admit rates continues to drop at their current rate, then in 15 years Harvard’s admit rate will be 3%, UChicago’s admit rate will be 3%, Stanford’s admit rate will be 3.3%</p>

<p>Keep in mind it is unlikely UChicago will expand its undergraduate size another 40% in the 15 years. But even if we handicap UChicago and assume its drop in acceptance rate will slow to the same 50% rate of decline of other top schools, its admit rate will still drop to 6.5 percent in 15 years.</p>

<p>In addition, UChicago is best positioned for immediate, fast, quick, short term dramatic drops in admit rate of 2 to 3 percentages points a year for the next couple of years. So its could well be down to 10% next year.</p>

<p>What happens next will be determined by math and psychology. It is likely UChicago will get a bit of a boost by being ‘hot,’ since its drop is unusually rapid and quick, whereas most of the other schools ares simply dropping in step with each other; UChicago is gaining tremendously relative to everyone else.</p>

2

<p>Truth123:</p>

<p>The only problem is, the smaller acceptance rates you get, the harder it is to drive that number lower.</p>

<p>Put another way, for the U of C to drop from a 61% accept rate to a 13% accept rate, they saw a net gain of about 20,000 applications to the school (they got 5-6k apps in the mid-90s, and now they have 25k apps).</p>

<p>During that same time, Stanford or Harvard went from about 14-18k apps a year to about 36k apps a year - a net gain of about 20,000 applications as well. </p>

<p>In terms of net “gain,” UChicago isn’t really outpacing its peers. If anything, it’s just finally getting in line. </p>

<p>So your statistics demonstrate less of UChicago’s strength now (it’s doing what everyone else does) and more about how woefully behind UChicago was back in the 90s.</p>

3

<p>However, UChicago greatly increased its undergraduate size, whereas the others did not. (If it hadn’t its admit rate would already be in the 7% range.)</p>

<p>I am simply analyzing the trend for admit rate regardless of any other factors (all schools were and will be affected by world population, number of high school students, etc.). Whether or not the trend holds up time will tell. </p>

<p>But I stand by the comment. </p>

<p>From the 70s to 90s you also see many top school had about a 50% drop in admit rate. UChicago did not participate in that round but it will in the future.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, you are not viewing this from the point of view that an actual high school applicant will over the next 15 years. You are simply looking at it from the point of view (intentionally or unintentionally) of what the situation was back when you applied.</p>

<p>This will happen one step at a time.UChicago does not immediately have to take on Harvard and Stanford over night. But over the years it will suck more and more students from schools in the same admit range as its rate drops further, which will fuel further increases.)</p>

<p>In the past, it was catching up. But that is about to change, as it moves ahead. That will be clearer in the next couple of years as it bypasses Brown and Dartmouth in admit rates.</p>

<p>And, of course, over the next 15 years there will be population growth.</p>

4

<p>Truth123:</p>

<p>I see the situation like this: for the past several decades, UChicago has been one of the top colleges around, but, for much of that time, it didn’t pay much attention to issues such as student selectivity.</p>

<p>In about the past 10-15 years, the school paid more attention to selectivity, and didn’t neglect this issue, as it once did. The school’s selectivity is now mirroring its stature, which has, for the past 30 years or so, been behind Harvard and Stanford, but on par with most other schools. </p>

<p>My question though, is: why do you think UChicago’s “momentum” will take it past Brown, Dart, etc. so readily? Why won’t it simply catch up to the point where it’s in line with all these other schools, but not go farther than that? </p>

<p>Personally, I think UChicago’s decided to play the big numbers game, and its selectivity will reflect its stature - it will be one of the top 6-12 schools in terms of selectivity. I see no reason why it will pass schools such as Harvard, or really create much gap with a Brown or Dartmouth. It will fall in line, but I have no idea why you project such optimistic growth, given that all these other schools also play “big numbers” admissions games.</p>

5

<p>Brown and Dartmouth have admit rates in the single digits-it’s very unlikely that Chicago will go past them in the next 10 years or so. Once or so the acceptance rate drops below 15%, it’s very difficult for the admit rate to drop more than 1% in each subsequent year if you look at the pattern at these selective schools.</p>

<p>You’re assuming that Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, and Penn are going to maintain the same application numbers or experience stagnation, which is definitely not going to happen. None of these universities are sitting on their laurels; they are all going after the top students aggressively and its very difficult to overturn the traditional pecking order of the elite colleges.</p>

<p>I think Columbia is the only school that has any shot at breaking into the HYPSM circle anytime in the near future but its endowment cannot compare for now.</p>

6

<p>goldenboy</p>

<p>We do NOT talk about Duke.
Do you know why?</p>

<p>Have a nice day at Duke Forum!</p>

7

<p>UChicago has a lot more room. For all intents and purposes, it still does not have enough applicants from the South, Southwest and the West Coast. By reaching out to high schools in those regions, it can further improve its “big numbers”. (As an aside, I like it when schools play the big numbers game because that means more students get the chance to apply. Its more meritocratic.) In addition, UChicago does not engender the same level of distrust as the Ivies or the mini-Ivies who are seen as Establishment schools in the south and the wild west.</p>

<p>After improving its reach and geographic mix, UChicago’s numbers will flatten, like many people claim, but not before that. After that, its all a yield game.</p>

8

<p>i know this thread is old but…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t resist to prove goldenboy wrong.</p>

9

<p>Sucks to suck, goldenboy…you’re just jealous that UChicago’s acceptance rate is now 3% lower than Duke’s and its yield rate will probably be up to 10% higher.</p>

10

<p>Amazing looking back a year later how uchicago outperforms even the most optimistic expectation. My first year student is sure thriving beyond my expectations in all areas in this wonderful school. I am so grateful that she made the right choice this time last year.</p>

11

<p>Admit rate and yield can mean something, but will not mean anything. Reputation is built up in decades not by a sudden drop in admit rate. I also hope Chicago will surpass Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT in general reputation, but do you think this will happen so soon?</p>

12

<p>“Do you think this will happen so soon?”</p>

<p>…or at all? I agree with Chauduri. UChicago’s improving reputation doesn’t mean it will become the #1 school in the universe. And just because one school is improving its departments, student life, career placements, etc doesn’t mean that other schools are not improving as well. I’m a current student at UChicago and love it, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Surpassing Harvard, Yale, etc. isn’t something that is set to necessarily occur. It might or it might not but I think we’re getting a bit too excited. Our dreams for UChicago should be about how UChicago can improve itself rather than being better than other schools.</p>

<p>Also, let’s try not to denigrate other posters. His post was months ago and the present criticism of him makes UChicago look immature. I’m aware of the things he’s said, but let’s have some respect.</p>

13

<p>I think that going from 38% to 8.8% acceptance rate in just 5 years is something that will never happen again.</p>

14

<p>i think we were merely stating the objective fact that goldenboy was wrong and that UChicago have indeed surpassed Brown, Duke, and Dartmouth in acceptance rate. We never said anything about gaining reputation/surpassing HYP.</p>

15

<p>darthvader: I guess they didn’t teach you how to round at Duke.</p>

16

<p>I have a lot of respect for darthvader, but like I said, as I was searching around cc and when i came across this thread, I couldn’t resist but bump it, not because I think Chicago is now somehow “better” than Duke, Dartmouth, or Brown because of its lower acceptance rate, but to prove goldenboy wrong. that’s all it is.</p>

17

<p>Sorry, I’ll admit my post was immature and I just wanted to get back at goldenboy for his rather implicit attacks on UChicago. </p>

<p>By the way, I’m very close to asking my parents to submit my deposit with me for UChicago. Maroons '17!</p>

18

<p>University of Chicago’s marketing to top high school students is both relentless and clever. It has helped to increase the number of quality applicants and ultimately in drawing top students away from its existing peer institutions. However, it hasn’t made Chicago a true peer with the HYPSM institutions yet. The more telling figure in this respect is not the admission rate, but rather the cross-admit data. See, for example, pp. 20-21 of this Stanford report from 2010: <a href=“http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2010_2011/minutes/10_07_10_SenD6388.pdf[/url]”>http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2010_2011/minutes/10_07_10_SenD6388.pdf&lt;/a&gt; It shows that Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT each draws a material amount of cross-admits from Stanford, but no other college draws more than 2% of the cross-admits. Once Chicago actually shows up on charts like this then we can talk about Chicago having gained ground on the HYPSM peer group.</p>

<p>All that said, if any of my children told me they wanted to go to Chicago, I would be delighted to have them attend no matter where else they had been admitted. University of Chicago is one of our nation’s great universities and has been for a long time.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>UChicago’s “relentless” marketing began to yield significant results only after the class of 2014, when it’s acceptance rate dropped below 20% and yield bordered on 40%. This year, with an acceptance rate of 8.8% and an estimated yield of 52%, Chicago is very much a different monster than it was in 2010, which is the last year the referenced document used in it’s analysis. Although I don’t think it would be toppling HYP or M today, it would almost certainly join them to complete the pentad of schools which enroll more than 2% of Stanford cross-admits. Other than Harvard, which enrolls 32% Stanford cross-admits, the elite group enroll between 12% (MIT) and 16% (Yale) Stanford cross-admits, which Chicago won’t be beating any time soon, but it will still (probably) deserve to be in the same peer group as Princeton, at least as much as MIT deserves to be in the same peer group as Harvard (as far as the study is concerned, that is).</p>

<p>Only time will tell how close it will come to challenging HYPSM’s well cemented superiority, but since it now ranks ahead of Yale in the aggregated international university rankings (and also ranks ahead of Princeton and Stanford on certain international rankings), ranks ahead of SM on USNews’s rankings and HYM on Forbes’s (slightly loony) rankings, and seems to be approaching some of the five in selectivity and yield, I’m bullish.</p>

20

<p>Eh. I applied to Harvard and Stanford and got rejected at both, but I would pick Stanford over Harvard 9 times out of 10.</p>